just seen the news
- Thread starter jbonding
- Start date
Sponsored Links
jbonding said:
bas
Can you answer me one question, lets say for eg, you see a terrorist ready to throw a hand grenade at a bunch of women and children,
Your standing a few feet away from the terrorist, and you have the capability to prevent him throwing that grenade ( ie, gun ) would you.
A = shoot him. ?
B = let him throw the grenade at the defenceless women and children, then hope he gets caught and put in prision, for the rest of is life. ?
Can you answer me one question, lets say for eg, you see a terrorist ready to throw a hand grenade at a bunch of women and children,
Your standing a few feet away from the terrorist, and you have the capability to prevent him throwing that grenade ( ie, gun ) would you.
A = shoot him. ?
B = let him throw the grenade at the defenceless women and children, then hope he gets caught and put in prision, for the rest of is life. ?
Sponsored Links
Unless you want to claim that you are too stupid to know, you know what happens when bombs are dropped on targets in The Lebanon. You know that innocent civilians get killed.Glassman said:
So saying you hope they drop a bomb on Omar Bakri is saying you hope they do something that you know will kill innocent civilians.
Can you tell me what relevance that has to the issue of whether people should be allowed to make posts on a family forum in favour of, or asking for, actions that they know will cause innocent civilians to be killed?markie said:
ban-all-sheds said:
I'll will let you know after you answer the question.
Now - shall I answer, and let you make a fool of yourself trying to turn my answer into a justification of the hypocritical policy on this forum of allowing people to make posts stirring up hatred, and calling for violence, but disallowing posts that highlight the reality of what they are asking for?
Or shall I not waste my time answering because I have a strong suspicion that you just don't understand why it is wrong for people to make posts stirring up hatred, and calling for violence, when posts that highlight the reality of what they are asking for are removed?
Or shall I not waste my time answering because I have a strong suspicion that you just don't understand why it is wrong for people to make posts stirring up hatred, and calling for violence, when posts that highlight the reality of what they are asking for are removed?
ban-all-sheds said:
If you don't want to answer the question, then thats ok, it's got nothing to do with posts regarding this topic, or any other.
Mine would be A.
So why did you ask it in this topic?markie said:
ban-all-sheds said:
What i would say is stop reading too much into a post and thinking of every scenario that will put you in this bracket. (sexist/racist/homophobic/etc) Its nearly impossible because of PC, but not giving an answer usually spares you the slure
Oh I have no problem with answering - just having a bit of fun with Markie - trying to get my head round what he thinks he's going to do with my answer..
One of the things you don't much want on a family forum are bad tempered debates that go on and on covering the same old ground
You have made your point BAS, you could just chill out now. It's getting to the point where people can't post without you jumping down their throats. You'r turning into a one man censorship committee
You have made your point BAS, you could just chill out now. It's getting to the point where people can't post without you jumping down their throats. You'r turning into a one man censorship committee
You're missing the point entirely - I am not trying to censor people - I am trying to get the censorship that is applied, to be applied in an even and consistent fashion.
I am trying to get people to see that it is not alright for the moderators to censor any post, no matter what it is, or who made it, on the grounds of it being "unsuitable for a family forum" when they leave other equally unsuitable posts alone.
I am trying to get it into everyone's heads, including the moderators', and admin's, that people saying that it's OK to kill civilians with bombs (and Slogger did explicitly say that), and people preaching racism, and people saying let's burn mosques, and people saying let's torture paedophiles, and people saying let's shoot illegal immigrants, are people who are posting views that ought to be completely unacceptable on a family forum.
And I am trying to get it into everyone's heads, including the moderators', and admin's, that until they address the imbalance, until they start thinking through what the implications and the reality of such actions mean, then this problem is never going to go away.
I am, to be honest, disgusted at the way the moderators behave, and I am, for now, reserving judgement on the site owners, but this recent incident of the removal of a discussion about what bombing really does, and how people who call for it should be made to think about what they are really asking for is the last time I am just going to let it lie, and wait for the next time it all explodes into acrimony.
(And for those of you still struggling to keep up, this is not about the censorship of the photograph, it is about the censorship of the debate about the censorship, and about the censorship of the debate on whether people should be allowed to make posts advocating violence and not be criticised for them).
It may be that the site owner finally gets off the fence and says that this forum is to be a refuge for the hate and violence brigade, or it may be that he gets off the fence and finally gets the mods to implement the stated site policy.
Or it may be that he stays there, because he doesn't care that his stated policy is false and that his moderators allow hate and violence to remain.
We shall see.
I am trying to get people to see that it is not alright for the moderators to censor any post, no matter what it is, or who made it, on the grounds of it being "unsuitable for a family forum" when they leave other equally unsuitable posts alone.
I am trying to get it into everyone's heads, including the moderators', and admin's, that people saying that it's OK to kill civilians with bombs (and Slogger did explicitly say that), and people preaching racism, and people saying let's burn mosques, and people saying let's torture paedophiles, and people saying let's shoot illegal immigrants, are people who are posting views that ought to be completely unacceptable on a family forum.
And I am trying to get it into everyone's heads, including the moderators', and admin's, that until they address the imbalance, until they start thinking through what the implications and the reality of such actions mean, then this problem is never going to go away.
I am, to be honest, disgusted at the way the moderators behave, and I am, for now, reserving judgement on the site owners, but this recent incident of the removal of a discussion about what bombing really does, and how people who call for it should be made to think about what they are really asking for is the last time I am just going to let it lie, and wait for the next time it all explodes into acrimony.
(And for those of you still struggling to keep up, this is not about the censorship of the photograph, it is about the censorship of the debate about the censorship, and about the censorship of the debate on whether people should be allowed to make posts advocating violence and not be criticised for them).
It may be that the site owner finally gets off the fence and says that this forum is to be a refuge for the hate and violence brigade, or it may be that he gets off the fence and finally gets the mods to implement the stated site policy.
Or it may be that he stays there, because he doesn't care that his stated policy is false and that his moderators allow hate and violence to remain.
We shall see.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
